Through the Suara.com page - Criminal law expert at the Jakarta Veterans National Development University, Beni Harmoni Harefa, was presented at a follow-up hearing on the fire case at the Republic of Indonesia Attorney General's Office building, Monday (22/3/2021). In his statement, Beni highlighted the negligence as charged by the Public Prosecutor (JPU) against the six defendants.

According to him, there must be a causal relationship which then sparked a fire in the main building of the Adhiyaksa Corps. Beni said this in response to questions from the defense team of the defendants who asked about negligence.

"When the workers commit negligence, according to experts, who has the right to be responsible for this?" asked one of the defendant's legal advisors.

"If you look at who should be responsible, of course, first look at the theory of causality," said Beni.

According to Beni, this causality relationship must be proven first in seeing an event. He was of the opinion that there should not be misleading facts so that the actual incident was covered up.

"Don't be led astray by the facts, it turns out that there are actual facts that have not been revealed in the illustration above, that there are workers like that that must be proven and linked first to who is actually most responsible," he said.

Beni explained, proving a fact is important in this case. This must be done in order to find valid evidence, not the other way around.

"Then it creates confidence in the decision makers. So what is null and void is indeed not said in the Criminal Procedure Code. But what is meant is better, that it is better to acquit 10 guilty people than to convict one innocent person," he explained.

Separately, the attorney for the defendants, Kurnia Hadi, spoke about the evidence in the form of cigarette butts being used as evidence. For him, the samples of cigarette butts that were presented by the prosecutor at the previous trial misrepresented the facts in the trial.

"My illustration is, if smoking is suspected, it means that what caused the cigarette fire must be proven, not the cigarette samples that will be available the next day. So indeed Beni explained, if indeed the evidence cannot be tested properly or is not valid, then that is what is called error. facts," Kurnia said.

Kurnia explained, if one thing becomes a fact that is misguided, then the whole thing will become misguided. According to him, the evidence that should have been presented was not in the form of samples.

"Regarding the evidence that was proven two weeks ago, it was a sample cigarette, not the cigarette that he suspected was burnt. If the prosecutor can suspect that the cause was smoking, try to prove where the butts were," said Kurnia.

indictment

In total there were six defendants from the workers' element who were present in the courtroom and were divided into three case files.

The first case file number 50/Pid.B/2021/PN JKT.SEL with the defendant Imam Sudrajat. For the second file with case number 51/Pid.B/2021/PN JKT.SEL for the four defendants, namely, Sahrul Karim, Karta, Tarno, and Halim.

Then, the third file with case number 52/Pid.B/2021/PN JKT.SEL with one defendant, namely Uti Abdul Munir. During the trial, the Public Prosecutor (JPU) charged that the six of them had committed negligence -- so the fire started. For this, the public prosecutor charged the six people with Article 188 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with 55 paragraph 1 to 1 of the Criminal Code.